South Bronx Overall Economic Dev. Corp. v 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

South Bronx Overall Economic Dev. Corp. v 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 33963(U) September 27, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 22632/2018E Judge: Julia I. Rodriguez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 09:52 AM INDEX NO. 22632/2018E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF THE BRONX --------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. 22632/2018E South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp., Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER -against- Present: 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp., Hon. Julia I. Rodriguez Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------X Supreme Court Justice Recitation, as requi red by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of defe ndant's motion to dismiss the complai nt and for judgment on his counterclaim. Papers Submitted Numbered I Notice o f Motion, Affirmation & Exhibits Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits Memorandum of Law in Opposition Re ply Affirmation & Exhibits 2 3 4 In the instant action, plaintiff South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. ("Sobro") alleges causes of action for specific performance and breach of contract against defendant 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp. ("4521 Park" ) in connection with an alleged agreement for the sale by 452 1 Park to Sobro of certain real property located at 452 1-4529 Park Avenue, Bronx, NY ('·the Premises"). 452 1 Park now moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 321 l (a)(l), (5) 1 and (7), and for j udgment on its counterclaim for damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 for placing a lien on its property without a valid claim and/or cause of action. The complaint, verified by Sobro' s President, alleges as follows: On or about December 3, 2014, Sobro's President, and Messrs. Carlos De Los Santos and Jose Lozano, principals of 452 1 Park, executed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) for the sale of the Premises by 1 The moving papers do not address defendant' s basis for dismissal under CPLR 32 11 (a)(5) and, therefore, the court will not address this subsection and deems this claim abandoned. -1- 2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 09:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 INDEX NO. 22632/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 452 1 Park to So bro for a purchase price of $1, 160,000.00, for the purpose of developing veterans housing on the Premises. 4521 represented that it owned the entire Premises. The MOU is a binding and enforceable agreement for the sale and transfer of the Premises. So bro has performed or has been prevented from performing all conditions set forth in the MOU and is not in default of same. In re liance on the MOU, Sobro spent in excess of $65,000.00 in preparation for the development of the proj ect, including appraisals, environmental studies, survey and architectural designs and drawings. Sobro is also contractual ly beholden to investors who have made commitments toward the development of the project. After the signing of the MOU, 452 1 Park, without basis, notified Sobro that it would not execute a contract of sale and would not proceed to close title and failed and refused to take the actions necessary to comply with the MOU and close title. After the signing of the MOU, Sobro discovered that 4521 Park had been actively marketing the property to other potential purchasers and had received a downpayment from one such potential purchaser. After the MOU was executed, 452 1 Park unjustifiably demanded a higher acquisition price of $2,200,000.00. 452 1 Park is in breach of the MOU. At all times, Sobro was and remains ready, willing and able to close on the Premises pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The Premises are unique and So bro has no adequate remedy at law. In support of its motion, 452 1 Park contends that the MOU : ( I) does not set forth a definiti ve purchase price, (2) does not include all the essential terms of a complete agreement, including a closing date and a risk of loss clause, and (3) is not a binding contract because certain emails demonstrate that there were negotiations for an agreement, and not an enforceable agreement. In support of its contentions, 4521 Park submitted the affidavit of Carlos De Los Santos, the MOU and certain email communications. ln his affidavit, De Los Santos states as follows: In emai l communications dated May 24, 2017 and July 11 , 20 17, respectively, from Woody Victor, Sobro's Vice President, Real Estate Development to 4521 Park, Sobro "admitted that there was no binding contracf' between Sobro and 4521 Park. De Los Santos points to the following statements made by V ictor as indicative of the lack of an enforceable agreement between the parties: "Our funding partner may pull out if we don' t have a deal soon," " I would -2- 3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 09:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 INDEX NO. 22632/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 like us to move to contract ASAP," and "Current offer on the table." De Los Santos also states that the MOU indicates that the purchase price included "a fi xed percentage of the development fee" but did not set forth how that fee would be calculated, what it would be or when it would be paid. Further, 4521 Park did not receive any consideration for the MOU, the MOU did not set forth a closing date and Sobro did not set a closing date at anytime thereafter. In its "Terms" section, the MOU states that " [t]he Seller shall sell and convey and the Purchaser shall purchase the property . .. known as 452 1-4529 Park A venue, Bronx, New York, 10457, Block 3030, Tax Lot 161 , 162, and 163." The purchase price for the land is li sted as "$ I, 160,000 payable as follows: $1 , 160,000 at a construction closing; 5,000 square feet of commercial space located at the newly constructed building; in addition to a fixed percentage of the development fee, which is to be paid through avail able cash flow." ln the case of default under the MOU, the MOU provides that ( 1) if the purchaser defaults, the seller' s sole remedy is to retain the down payment and (2) if the seller defaults, the purchaser shall have all remedies available at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, specific performance. The MOU further states that " it completely expresses their full agreement. " ** ******* * On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §32 1 l (a)(l) and (a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as a lleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 6 14 N.Y. S.2d 972 (1994). However, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration." See Maas v. Cornell, 94 N. Y .2d 87, 9 1, 699 N. Y.S.2d 716 ( 1999). Dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations and conclusively establi shes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law. See Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofN. Y. , 98 N.Y.2d 3 14, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858 (2002); Weil, Gotshal & Manges. LLP v. Fashion Boutique ofShort Hills, Inc., I 0 A.D. 3d 267, 270 (1 51 Dept. 2004). Affidavits submitted by a defendant to attack the sufficiency of a pleading "will seldom if ever warrant the relief he seeks unless ... the affidavits establish -3- 4 of 6 [* 4] FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 09:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 INDEX NO. 22632/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action." See Rovella v. Orofino Realty Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 636, 389 N. Y.S.2d 314 ( 1976). The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance thereunder, (3) the defendant's breach thereunder, and (4) resulting damages. See Harris v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 A.D.3d 425, 426, 9 13 N .Y.S.2d 161 (1 51 Dept. 20 10). To create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms. See Express Indus. & Terminal Corp. v. New York State DOT, 93 N.Y.2d 584, 589, 693 N. Y.S.2d 857 (1999). Here, the MOU sufficiently manifests the mutual assent of So bro and 452 1 Park to all material terms of the agreement. Indeed, it specifically states that ·'[a]ll prior understandings, agreements ... between the Seller and Purchaser are merged in this MOU [sic] it completely expresses the parties full agreement and has been entered into after full investigation, neither party relying upon any statement made by anyone else that is not set forth in this MOU." As such, contrary to 452 1 Park's contention, it constitutes an enforceable contract. Further, the complaint sufficiently alleges Sobro's performance under the contract, 452 1 Park' s breach thereunder and resulting damages. The elements of a claim for specific performance of a contract are: (1) the plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations and was willing and able to perform its remaining obligations, (2) the defendant was able to convey the property, and (3) there was no adequate remedy at law. See EMF General Contracting Corp. v. Bisbee, 6 A.D.3d 45, 5 1, 774 N.Y.S.2d 39 (I 51 Dept. 2004). The court finds that the allegations set forth in the complaint, discussed above, satisfy the pleading requirements for a cause of action for specific performance. The court does not find that the documentary evidence submitted by 452 1 Park utterly refutes Sobro' s factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law. -4- 5 of 6 [* 5] FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 09:52 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 INDEX NO. 22632/2018E RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp.'s motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and (a)(7), and for judgment on its counterclaim is denied in its entirety. Dated: Bronx, New York September Z72018 -5- 6 of 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.